PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) just lost one

[mybrainhurts]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/06/monke...

A photographer set his camera up on a tripod and left it, hoping a monkey would fire the cable release.

The monkey took pictures of itself.

PETA went to court to claim copyright on behalf of the monkey and to hold fees on the monkey's behalf, to be paid for monkey welfare measures.

PETA lost.

Which was nice...

[jmorgan]

Bunch of loons. When you see what else that menagerie yogurt knitters get up to, they are making to religious lunatics. Come the nuclear winter they should be first on the roasting spit for the survivors.



Edit. Hang on, lettuce botherers, on second thoughts just on the roasting spit for the hell of it.

Edited by jmorgan on Thursday 21st January 06:47

[Eric Mc]

When a student takes photos during photography studies, who owns the copyright, the student or the college?

[marshalla]

Eric Mc said:

When a student takes photos during photography studies, who owns the copyright, the student or the college?

Depends on what's stated on the enrolment/matriculation forms.

[Halmyre]

Should've got a more capable lawyer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkC_Shdynrw

[Mafffew]

It's a fking monkey. It cannot possibly have any claim to copyright because it's a BLOODY MONKEY! How or why this was taken seriously I will never understand.

PETA and their lot really just need to fk off.

[marshalla]

Mafffew said:

It's a fking monkey. It cannot possibly have any claim to copyright because it's a BLOODY MONKEY! How or why this was taken seriously I will never understand.

PETA and their lot really just need to fk off.

Wikipedia started it : http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-...

[Patch1875]

It's a great picture!

[Moonhawk]

If this had any legs - then it would call into question the copyright of any wildlife image (or any image for that matter) where the camera is triggered remotely by a third party (infrared motion sensor, pressure sensor, sound sensor etc).

Is the act of "taking a photograph" considered to be nothing more than the physical action that results in the triggering of the camera shutter?

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 21st January 10:02

[rodericb]

Moonhawk said:

If this had any legs - then it would call into question the copyright of any wildlife image (or any image for that matter) where the camera is triggered remotely by a third party (infrared motion sensor, pressure sensor, sound sensor etc).

Is the act of "taking a photograph" considered to be nothing more than the physical action that results in the triggering of the camera shutter?

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 21st January 10:02

Would it also call into doubt footage of crimes which are used as evidence? The subject could claim copyright and refuse the prosecution permission to use it!

[Hooli]

rodericb said:

Moonhawk said:

If this had any legs - then it would call into question the copyright of any wildlife image (or any image for that matter) where the camera is triggered remotely by a third party (infrared motion sensor, pressure sensor, sound sensor etc).

Is the act of "taking a photograph" considered to be nothing more than the physical action that results in the triggering of the camera shutter?

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 21st January 10:02

Would it also call into doubt footage of crimes which are used as evidence? The subject could claim copyright and refuse the prosecution permission to use it!

Good point

[anonymous-user]

Moonhawk said:

If this had any legs -

Lets hope it's not a Millipede taking a selfie

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 21st January 14:09

[rfisher]

Nice lack of overbite.

Which we (primates) also had, apparently, until we started eating with knives and forks.

I reckon the monkey should get the money - he knew exactly what he was doing.

Don't underestimate the competition.

They're planning to take over.

This is just the first step.

He knew we would get the lawyers involved.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right etc.

.

[Halmyre]

Mafffew said:

It's a fking monkey. It cannot possibly have any claim to copyright because it's a BLOODY MONKEY! How or why this was taken seriously I will never understand.

PETA and their lot really just need to fk off.

On the contrary, the more they indulge in ridiculous stunts like this, the harder it will be for them to be taken seriously.

[BoRED S2upid]

Why a court in the US? Only one in the world that would give them the time of day?

[wolves_wanderer]

marshalla said:

Mafffew said:

It's a fking monkey. It cannot possibly have any claim to copyright because it's a BLOODY MONKEY! How or why this was taken seriously I will never understand.

PETA and their lot really just need to fk off.

Wikipedia started it : http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-...

Saves wikipedia having to pay to use it

[FredClogs]

Blatant speciesism. If you don't give them copyright then you don't have to give them land rights, civil rights and welfare rights.

Although in this case I guess I agree with the judgment because the monkey was essentially guilty of theft by finding - with great rights comes great responsibilities.

[schmunk]

speedyguy said:

Moonhawk said:

If this had any legs -

Lets hope it's not a Millipede taking a selfie

Edited by speedyguy on Thursday 21st January 14:09

[Hoofy]

Patch1875 said:

It's a great picture!

Better than most selfies.

[ChemicalChaos]

FredClogs said:

Blatant speciesism. If you don't give them copyright then you don't have to give them land rights, civil rights and welfare rights.

There was a campaign a few years back, probably by PETA, to extend all human rights to animals.... So, pets become illegal captives and meat really is murder!